Vanderhoven7... Hume's type of philosophy bent on of teasing meaning from semantics never appealed to me. I appreciate the mental exercise and precise definitions inherent in the enterprise but in the end the conclusions are often as subjective as the words chosen. "Materialist" for example is not a word most non-deists would choose to describe themselves as it falsely assumes the void of social values in people who are not convinced in the existence of gods. BTW There have been a number of equally clever philosophical rebuttals of Hume's conclusion that don't impress me any more than he does.
In this particular subject you seem passionate about, abortion. The choice of language is extremely revealing, you keep calling the aborted fetuses "babies" which is loaded with imagery and emotional impact that assume a conclusion, that fetal tissues are the same as babies. I'm not interested in changing your opinion about that as it is your conclusion to draw. The opposite view is likewise a conclusion someone is theirs to draw. Most of us (reflected in abortion laws) have nuanced perspectives that include details about the lateness of the development and health of the fetus and mother etc.
What I know is that the question of atheism or theism really doesn't determine how someone feels about this issue. It's more a matter of education, projected personal experience and possibly even genetics. If someone had the experience of losing a pregnancy that was highly anticipated and desired, they would naturally have more difficulty understanding why others would not place deep emotional significance to the early stages of pregnancy. I will also not discount the role genetics play in how the drive to reproduce is much stronger in some than others.
People of an opinion on this topic seek others that have a similar view to advocate for this view, a group identity forms. Not wrong or dangerous as long as it doesn't blind a person to the fact that others have a right to have different views.